Tag Archives: some people do not talk about themselves

“We miss out on the value of the message itself as a vehicle for driving virality.”

–

Jonah Berger

==================

“Say something meaningful in an interesting way.”

–

Bruce McTague

<author of “the shortest business book ever written”>

===================

So.

This is about how we have a simplification crisis.

Ok.

This is about how we have an oversimplification crisis.

This crisis is making us … well … stupid.

Ok.

This crisis is making us stupider.

Look.

What I mean is that in a world in which we know that everything is complex, and more often than not, more complex than our own pea like brains can handle, we unerringly swerve toward simplistic headline conclusions and oversimplifications and absurd bullet point conclusions.

This surface skating intellectualism just makes us stupider.

Now.

We may convince ourselves we do this simply as a mental survival technique but I would argue, and I do, that it actually is the opposite of a survival technique … it is destructive behavior. It is destructive in that it destroys the overall thinking of what is actually a population quite capable of being intelligent, if not intellectual.

Yeah.

It makes us stupider.

I thought about this the other day because I have conversations with some incredibly smart and talented people who know a shitload more about more things than I could ever imagine and this topic came up. I note the smartness of these people to highlight how unusual it is that I can say something that actually can make a group of these people stop, be silent and then go “hmmmmmmmmmm.”

It is a rare thing.

And, yet, it happened the other day.

After some extensive conversation on North Korea, global trade challenges, Trump <of course> & foreign policy we opened the discussion to “what is the biggest challenge facing us …”

And I offered a couple reasons why I believe this is happening <I did this because if you can identify the issues you can find solutions>:

We have convinced ourselves we do not have time for complex

Going back to the ‘destructive behavior’ thought I shared earlier … oversimplification is anything but efficient. It actually demands more time in a variety of ways. The two simplest ways it does so is <1> the time we over invest attempting to isolate the simplest version of what is anything but simple and <2> the amount of time & energy we have to invest explain everything beyond the simplistic tripe initially offered, to thwart misguided behavior & reactions to the oversimplified offering & to redefine the oversimplification into bifurcated parts of the oversimplified whole.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that we all have shorter, and shortened, attention spans.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that people best retain “one thing.”

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves in our perceived “never enough time” world we have to topline everything <to fit everything in>.

We do this destructive behavior because we have convinced ourselves that in a blizzard of nonstop things constantly vying for our attention the only way to capture someone’s attention is in some pithy soundbite.

Basically we have convinced ourselves that hollowing out an idea and a thought actually benefits not only the idea and the thought … but us!

This is fucking nuts. Absolutely crazy.

Unfortunately, and truthfully, some things are just too complex to communicate in a sound bite or in 3 seconds or less.

No matter how brief and simple you want to make it … well … it is neither brief nor simple. It is complex and sometimes the opposite of brief.

It isn’t just about telling a story.

Nor is it just about finding influencers to broker the story.

Nor is it just about practical value.

Nor is it just about emotion.

Unfortunately it is a combination of those things. Yeah. Effective communication is … uhm … complex.

We have convinced ourselves that simple & simplicity is reflective of common sense.

I admit.

I have never been shy about calling bullshit on the simplistic tripe being spewed under the guise of ‘expert advice’ or ‘common sense.’

That said.

I will suggest no topic has been tortured more by common sense than simplicity.

Common sense suggests the simplest thing is the best.

Common sense suggests it is easier for a person to remember one thing and one word.

Common sense suggests in a complex world we humans crave simplicity.

Common sense suggests in a busy world we only have time for simplicity.

Common sense suggests a lot of nonsensical bullshit.

I will not argue that making something as simple as it can be is good but … well … simplistically … oversimplification is misleading and ultimately creates bad less-than-informed decision making AND thinking.

We have used this common sense simplicity bullshit for one simple reason — it serves us well in challenging the most established legitimate rule of Life & things. And that rule is “the world is complex.”

We embrace simplistic solution after simplistic solution, all labeled as ‘common sense ideas’, which are often counter to what an expert would suggest <which is often deemed “too complex”>… only to find 90% of the time common sense was not only just simply wrong but also made us stupider.

I have written about simplicity and the complexity of finding the simplest way to communicate the complex many times and as I do so today I would remind everyone of what Jonah Berger offered us for a nifty sound bite compilation of sound bites to create a sound bite philosophy:

Here are his STEPPS for making anything go viral:

– Social Currency: We share things that make us look good (even if that means pictures of our cat).

– Triggers: Easily memorable information means its top of mind and tip of the tongue.

– Emotion: When we care, we share.

– Public: Built to show, built to grow.

– Practical Value: News people can use.

– Stories: People are inherent storytellers, and all great brands also learn to tell stories. Information travels under the guise of idle chatter.

And while this is about “making things go viral” it is actually about finding the simplest way to communicate complex shit in a way that it is actually retained in a cognitive way.

I would also note that this dos not reflect “one simple thing”, it does reflect the complexity of reality and the mind and it reflects how to … well … help make us less stupider.

Ah.

Cognitive way.

As in “we actually understand what it is we heard, saw or read.”

That is an important thing to ponder because over simplification cheats cognitive value as well as the value of whatever it is you have to offer people. Simplicity may be “memorable” but it doesn’t really lodge itself in anyone’s mind & memory in any meaningful way.

In fact.

The less depth you offer in your oversimplification the more you are at the mercy of the mind that decides to remember you. What I mean by that is if you don’t provide the depth the mind will create some perceptions around whatever it lodges in the pea like brain.

Uhm.

This means the pea like brain lodges only what is actually the brain’s perceptions of what to remember and not what you <a> know to be true, <b> think it may be important for that mind to know or <c> want the brain to store away in its mind.

I imagine what I am talking about is some wacky version of awareness versus engagement but that shit is bullshit too.

It’s all bullshit because we should be turning away from simplification and engagement and connection and simply focus on “say what you need to say to persuade someone to think or do what you want them to think or do.”

All the other bullshit just confuses things.

If I tell someone that ‘being noticed ‘ is the most important thing, than some asshat is gonna come up with some zany oversimplified shit that gets noticed but doesn’t effectively communicate one thing <let alone all the things you may have deemed truly important in the beginning>.

I admit … I balk at a lot of the bullshit offered online about simplification <and the importance thereof> because … well … it is an oversimplification which diminishes the importance of ‘communicating depth’ and increases the importance of ‘being noticed.’

I do not like that equation.

Effective communication is not a binary choice.

Effective communication, as with almost everything, is a complex challenge in communicating a complex thing well – because if you can communicate a couple things well it actually increases the perceived value <which then inevitably creates a stronger “memory stamp” … with value attached!>.

Which brings me back to our oversimplification crisis.

I could clearly argue that in today’s fragmented messaging world where information multiplies at light speed and a day still remains 24 hours that we humans are constantly honing our “incoming thoughts” filtering mechanisms.

I could also argue that our filtering system, as it exists today, sucks.

We have dumbed down our communication and thinking behavior to such a hollowed out status the majority of time we skate along the superficial irrelevant surface of reality.

If we are lucky, the ice doesn’t crack.

But the truth is that oversimplification only offers the thinnest of ice to skate on and inevitably we fall thru the ice … over and over and over again.

Uhm.

And in the business world falling through the ice is bad. It is, metaphorically, making a bad decision based on shallow thinking and paying for it.

Yeah.

I did say the biggest issue we face is oversimplification.

I said that because if I can solve this, if I can have smarter people communicating complex things more smartly and I can have more everyday schmucks understanding that simple solutions are more often like trying to place a square peg in a round hole … well … I think it unravels a shitload of other problems we face in today’s world.

I imagine I am arguing that if more people are less stupid and more aware of the reality of things the more effective & efficient we will be in addressing the difficulties reality tends to place in front of us.

In the end I will go back to where i began … “say something meaningful in an interesting way.”

There are no rules nor boundaries in this statement.

You use as many words, or as few, as you need to say … to say something meaningful in an interesting way with the intent for it to be understood … and, ultimately, persuade someone to think something.

“Debate is great for sharpening the mind, but I worry that really skilled debaters might internalize the idea that the point of discussion and debate is victory, rather than truth. In debate, if you encounter a compelling counterargument, you just try to find a way around it.

But you should argue for truth, not for victory.

Really good debaters run the risk of ignoring valid counterarguments.”

Let me be clear … if you suck at debating, you will be a sucky contrarian.

If you cannot debate you simply are an opinionated person with a non-mainstream point of view sitting angry in some office or at some desk thinking everyone is just not smart enough, and as smart as you, because they just can’t see what you see.

I have never had a desire to be angry nor staring at my own non-mainstream point of views piling up on my desk unused.

Next.

I am a self-proclaimed contrarian and … well … contrarians use truth … a lot.

Let me be clear … if you suck at telling the truth, clearly & concisely & unequivocally, you will be a sucky contrarian.

Truth is at the core of being a successful contrarian. Contrarians, simply by offering a contrary thought, find themselves constantly on the defensive defending the thought. This happens even if you go on the offensive. This happens because … well … contrary ideas & thoughts feel a little less comfortable, less familiar and more risky therefore people will inherently want to pick it apart. There is where ‘false’ haunts a contrarian. One falsehood is not just one falsehood. One falsehood implies others are there only yet to be found. If you cannot be an unequivocal truth teller you are simply a peddler of possibilities … and, well, true contrarians thrive on making possibilities realities.

I have never had a desire to be angry nor staring at my own non-mainstream hopeful possibilities piling up on my desk unused.

All that said.

When I saw the quote I opened with I had to sit back a little and think … think about how, as a contrarian, debate is used or not used.

Many contrarians focus on what I would call ‘the bookends’ — what their idea/thinking is and the ultimate outcomes — and judge themselves on that <and far too often dismiss counter thinking offered that changes the contrary thought>.

It is quite possible we contrarians <as well as many other people> should focus on ‘how they play the game’ … or how they debate … because I frankly don’t give a shit what you preach nor whether you eventually benefit from what you preach as long as what you preach is grounded in integrity & fair play & truth, what you actually do and how you behave is grounded in integrity & fair play & truth and what you preach isn’t just preaching but rather a thought which inspires additional thinking <which means the original thought will most likely look pretty different at the outcome than it did at the onset>.

If you do it right … if you debate it right … then you, and the idea itself, will benefit in that if the idea & thinking gets adopted in some form or fashion you will have done so as an outcome of what you preached, what you debated and how you behaved during the debate.

That seems like a good thing.

But here is where the opening quote really made me think … contrarianism is like a drug. When you have a contrarian idea and it is actually a good idea <and not all contrarians can tell if their idea is actually a good idea when being contrary> you can get caught up in the debate. You can start getting what I sometimes call “horizon blindness.” Horizon blindness is when you are so focused on the end destination and getting to the end destination you treat almost anything said, and any objection, as simply an obstacle to getting to the horizon … possibly ignoring any of the value being offered within the debate.

Even the best contrarians can get horizon blindness. Suffice it to say … the best contrarians can be aware of what is at exactly the same time as where they want to be. it permits some ‘cooperative arguments’ which <a> help build a better idea at the conclusion and <b> some ownership within all involved at the conclusion.

Anyway.

Here is what I think about being a great contrarian <maybe this is my wish list of what I could be>.

Scrupulously fair.

Contrarians have to walk a fine line. They rarely are flippant with a contrarian idea therefore can be dogged in its defense. Yet, they must be fair to the idea, the beauty of thinking itself and what others think & say.

In fact … you have to almost relentlessly be fair to everything else around you … scrupulously fair as a matter of fact.

Not domineering with beliefs.

This is a fine line to a contrarian. Frankly, any contrarian idea cannot step lightly into the fray. If it does it gets suffocated by the familiar, the status quo & the easier path. But the key word in what I suggested is “beliefs.” Any contrarian idea is constructed with a number of beliefs. The truth is that all beliefs reserve the right to not only be challenged but also changed. Therefore, dominating with a belief, in the contrarian world, is just asking for trouble … in addition … it is the wrong thing to do if you truly want the best idea at the end.

Cooperative argumentative dialogue.

The Socratic method <Socratic debateis a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions>. Every truly good contrarian I have ever met has been a master at the ongoing cooperative argument. They have been adaptive in debate, flexible in the flow and adept at finding seemingly irrelevant factoids and making them relevant at the appropriate moment.

Thinking tutor.

I want to be careful here because this is not to suggest contrarians are better thinkers or smarter thinkers and that they, and only they, can be the professors of thinking. What I am suggesting is that contrarians, in general, do think differently and they see things slightly differently. This means when you do it right … when you debate well & fairly & cooperatively … other people seem to walk away thinking about things in a slightly different way.

Relentless truth teller

One lie, one half truth, one ‘truthful hyperbole … and the whole house of cards tumbles down. Great contrarians are great pivoters away from what they do not know. what I mean is that instead of offering a ‘lie’ <falsehood> when faced with not knowing something they typically place an “I don’t know” on the table and pivot to a “but here is what I do know” and place a truth on the table where the “I don’t know” used to be. Key to what I just shared is a slavish attachment to truth … even at the expense of an “I don’t know.” contrarians realize the game being played is chess and you will sacrifice a piece rather than imperil the entire board.

That’s it.

When I saw the quote I opened with I loved the nuance in the description of debate … and made me think that maybe we, in business, misuse the concept. we may really debate in business … and maybe we shouldn’t be debating. Maybe we should be arguing for truth, not for victory.

“Ninety percent of paid work is time-wasting crap. The world gets by on the other ten.”

―

John Derbyshire

We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism

================

Well.

How many times have we sat back and said “I can do that job”?

Now.

To be clear.

I am going to talk about this from a business-to-business perspective and not the corner of the bar-to-‘a job’ perspective. That because from the corner of the bar, after a couple of beers, any of us can do any job better than the person who is currently doing it.

This is an “I have been in the workplace, I feel like I have had some success and … well … shit … I can do that job” perspective.

OK … I am chuckling a little, c’mon, let’s face it, I don’t care who you are and where you have worked you have eyed what another person is doing and thought you could do it. At some point, if you have had some success, all jobs start having some commodity-like characteristics which tease you into believing shifting from one to another just isn’t that difficult.

Ok.

To be fair.

I have never lacked in business confidence. I do not believe there is a business problem that cannot be solved and I also believe <with some realistic pragmatic goggles on> that there is not a problem I cannot solve if I hunker down and get all the information I need. This can make me aggravating to work with on occasion because … well … I make no apologies for “how I may repair things”.

But that shouldn’t be confused with believing I can do any job.

Ok.

Yeah.

I admit.

I am certainly guilty at points in my career where I have certainly thought “I could do that job” over a wide array of responsibilities and unrelated industries.

Note. I rarely thought I could do it better … just that I could do it.

……….. my MBA at Wake Forest experience ………..

I would say that my MBA experience, a great experience with great professors at Wake Forest, encouraged me to think this way. It was a case study program which inherently encouraged thinking skills over black & white discipline skills.

I tend to believe a good MBA program insures you know enough about a specific discipline to be … well … dangerous if you overestimate your own knowledge but effective enough to be able to understand the discipline to apply it in a general management scope.

Now.

In general, I think this attitude, on the positive side, permits you to make the leaps you have to make to jump into new jobs, new responsibilities and new positions.

In general, I think this attitude, on the negative side, can make you overlook some skills other people have as well as … at its worst … can put you in positions in which you will fail in a spectacular fashion.

I imagine as someone gets promoted, as I did, every step up showed me that there was a shitload I didn’t know overall, as well as about the responsibilities of a specific job, but at the same time it also continuously reinforced that I could … well … “do that job.”

Success in business is a double edged sword.

Conversely.

………. what you know versus what you do not know ………

As someone gets promoted they also can see that some people got their jobs not because they necessarily had the experience or skills for the job but simply because they had the appearance they could do the job.

You watched as these people invested gobs of energy trying to “fake it until they actually make it” or, worse, they realized they were in over their heads and invested even more energy simply maintaining a facade of bullshit to hide their hollowness.

I would also note that given your experience on the last thing I just shared that also encourages someone to believe they could … well … “do that job.”

The higher I got and the broader my experiences, my sense of “I cannot really do that job” increased with regard toward … well … the jobs I really shouldn’t do. It didn’t diminish my sense of ability to handle increased responsibility it simply made me more reflective of other skill sets and the reality of certain jobs.

To be clear.

There is a certain group of people who never reach this realization … they tend to be either sociopaths or oblivious narcissists … but they do exist.

Anyway.

My real realization on this topic came when I reached a general management position <and did some consulting>.

It was there that I recognized jobs are like icebergs.

90% of a job you never see until you actually do the job. And to successfully do the part you don’t see needs a couple of things … beyond the obvious ‘I need to be competent with regard to the specific skill itself’ aspect:

Attitude alignment

This attitude goes way beyond the simplistic “I can do the job.”

This attitude is more with regard to what you are actually good at.

As I have stated before I am more a renovator than a builder. That is a mindset. My attitude is just put me in a room with all the puzzle pieces and I can rearrange them, maybe polish off a couple, maybe smooth out some edges that no longer fit well … and put a different puzzle together that works better than the one that exists.

And then there are people who say ‘I envision a puzzle and build the pieces.”

Those are two different attitudes that, certainly, have some overlap but also, certainly, drive a different type of style and ability to succeed in one type of job versus another type of job. I believe many people are successful in their jobs, and new jobs, because they have the proper insight into themselves and position themselves well to take advantage of this insight.

I would also add that a leader who can see within a person’s ‘skill set’ to recognize this attitude will also be the type who can hire incredibly effectively.

Not all leaders and hirers can. some simply see the façade and surface abilities and believe they are easily transferable and … well … hire them believing anyone can do the job if they have that appearance of a type of surface skill set.

The less-than-obvious skill set

… example of under the radar understanding (Juran Institute) …

Each skill, each specialty, has layers to its depth & breadth. Let’s say this is the “art” of the skill <I sometimes refer to it as “the shadow of your skill”>.

When you are a junior person you are demanded day in and day out to craft your pragmatic ‘non-artistic’ skills. You learn how to screw screws into holes efficiently and hammer nails into their proper places effectively.

As you gain seniority you are demanded to start incorporating the art aspects of your craft. I like to explain this as you have to learn to be more of an architect of your department, skill and specialty. By the way … not everyone can do his and not every department head is good at this and it tends to start filtering out those who move on to the next level … general management.

And if you move up even more into general management you are demanded to gain some skills in the “art” of combining all the skills into the overall progress of a company beyond the simplistic “are each department doing their fucking job.”

In general the biggest difference between thinking you can do a job and actually being able to do the job is your less than obvious skill set. For example … I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in a conference room with a CFO who has displayed a skill set that … well … made me think “shit, this company is lucky to have them” not because they knew all the accounting mumbo jumbo but because they knew how to wield account skills in ways that the company benefited beyond accounting.

Pick your C-level title and I would say the same thing.

At the corner of the bar you have no clue whether you have this less than obvious skill set and if you actually have the experience you may only have a sense of whether this skill set exists. This is an intangible, however, 90% of the time this intangible arises from some relevant experience <maybe not within that specific discipline but a discipline nonetheless> … so your experience does matter.

So.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, we have a president who believes anyone can do any job and keeps hiring people who may be smart <and may not be … because I, frankly, question whether the President is smart> for positions they have no or little qualifications for that position.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, as a business guy I know you cannot do a job simply because you say “I can do that job” and that experience really does matter and that simply because you believe something … <sigh> … does not make it so.

I will say that I have learned this lesson the hard way and it permits me to be able to call a bullshitter a bullshitter and to be able to point out that some roles & responsibilities dictate at least some relevant experience in order to be effective & efficient.

Just because you think you can “do that job” does not mean you can actually “do that job.” It takes some self-awareness to know that.

The lack of self-awareness has a ripple effect.

In a bar your lack of self-awareness can create a range of responses – some chuckles, out right laughter of disbelief and maybe even some aggravation if it inches into what some of the people actually do sitting at the table.

In a business your lack of self-awareness can create … well … some real business repercussions. Not only may you be out of your depth but you may actually start making some poor hires who are also out of their depth and … well … that kind of shit gathers negative momentum <down the slippery slope of less-than-competent results>.

In business you get fired for that shit.

In a presidency your lack of self-awareness can create some real country repercussions – and we are seeing some of that lack of effectiveness now.

Effective communication has been, and always will be, complex and complicated … and a good thing for society. Effective communication inevitably feeds into the minds and enlightenment of the listeners. If you dumb down communication inevitably you dumb down the listeners.

Old white men hollowed out communication. I imagine as they hollowed out everything else they found it inherently more productive to gain their objectives by hollowing out communication. Everything became soundbites, powerpoint bullet points and ‘elevator speeches.’ Effectively communicating complexity took on less importance than puncturing the mind with a quick sharp stab <and then walking away>. Old white men mastered the art of emptying communication to a point where businesses end up walking on the slippery surface of irrelevance <cloaked in a beautiful robe called “what is important for you to know.”>

Bruce McTague

————————-

Well.

I may as well fulfill my contrarian obligations immediately – nothing is simple.

Nothing.

Look.

I may be wrong but I think the world would be a shitload ‘righter’ if we just assumed nothing was simple and started acting that way.

The whole idea of simple and simplicity has … well … fucked us up royally. It has almost become an obsession toward which everyone is consumed by until we are either frozen into inaction <this isn’t simple enough> or we hold our “simplicity prize” up high proudly … only to find in our holy quest we discarded some essential items which would have actually helped this ‘simple idea’ live.

We all want to simplify our lives <or at least we talk about it a lot>, simplicity in thinking, simplicity in ideas and simplicity in work … and yet, as a generalization, we all seem to seek every way possible to complicate our lives.

We see simplicity as a way to solve problems and, whew, we are a certainly a ‘people’ of problem solvers <but also problem creators as a corollary>.

And, yet, “it seems simple …” may be the biggest problem of all and may be one of the most misused and misguided statements and thoughts in today’s world.

A good friend of mine, an experienced communications professional, always says “if you are explaining you are losing” as an argument for simplicity. The challenge is that it … well … isn’t an argument for simplicity. It is actually an argument for clearly articulating what you want, and need, to articulate.

In fact … as I will point out later in this rant piece … being too simple actually creates more confusion, therefore, simplicity could actually be creating the explaining.

<oh my>

And that is where the myth of simplification dies. It dies in truth and reality.

Simplicity reality, more often than not, consists of two opposing things – security/reliability, which anchors the sense of safety thereby justifying the common sense aspect of simplicity, & passion/risk/newness, which anchors the sense of movement thereby justifying the smartness aspect of simplicity.

Simplicity reality, more often than not, is an amalgamation of multiple fragments crating a mosaic which is pleasing to the eye <and relatively easy to grasp>.

Simplicity reality, more often than not, consists of some opposing thoughts in that, typically, if you have one… you can’t have the other.

Contrary to simplicity narratives the complexity actually brings in the pragmatism of a simplistic reality <and I would argue effectiveness.>.

All this means is that simplicity is rarely simple and trying to capture it in a meaningful single word or image is … well … not only silly but sells the depth & breadth of a decision or situation or idea or thought … or reality itself … short.

Reality is complex.

Life is complex.

Most ideas and thoughts are complex.

And there is no simple solution to complexity.

Simple is hard.

It is hard because sometimes, okay, most times simplicity is arrived at by distilling complex solutions/ideas down to its most efficient form.

I would note that from my own business experience I would say that many times simplicity ideas can only be found from checking out all of the different solutions. And after sifting through everything simplicity is more often found in a “doh” moment <not an “ah ha!” moment> in that you may be surprised by the fact simplicity is just the thing that makes the most sense at the end of the day.

And why is simple THAT hard?

Well.

Al Einstein said, “Make things as simple as can be—but not simpler.”

Geez.

So simple isn’t the least.

It may actually be somewhere above the least and significantly below the most <complex>.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek simplicity. But what it does mean is that simple or simplicity shouldn’t be defined by rules or milestones or trite “say it in 10 seconds or less” dictates or, well, any boundaries.

Simplicity defines itself it is not defined. Simplicity is reflective of the time, place, people, situation and solution needed.

Ponder that my friends.

What may make simplicity even more complex is, oddly enough, that part which should make it the simplest.

Simplicity, more often than not, is the nitty gritty stuff and not the more glamorous big vision or “big idea” stuff. It is about marrying principle and pragmatism and gradual improvement – piece by piece and part by part.

To me, simple and simplicity tends to be found in shit that most people would think has nothing to do with simple:

Coalesce fragments

“The whole is simpler than the sum of its parts.

–

Willard Gibbs

I think people would be much better off f they understood that while simple may be represented in ‘one thing’ it is actually representative of many things.

The best of the best ‘simplicity finders’ are the ones who are the best at coalescing fragments. Gathering up disparate pieces of information and figuring out how to make them whole in a way that

Box in complexity

Let me begin by paraphrasing a quote about how Sylvia Plath wrote…

“Whether Plath wrote about nature, or about the social restrictions on individuals, she stripped away the polite veneer. She let her writing express elemental forces and primeval fears. In doing so, she laid bare the contradictions that tore apart appearance and hinted at some of the tensions hovering just beneath the surface of the American way of life.”

Margaret Rees

—————————————

I used the quote because far too many people think simplicity is about stripping away things to showcase the core instead maybe they should be thinking about stripping away the veneer so that the truth can be laid bare.

Let me explain <you will not agree with this if you do not agree that simplicity is a ‘whole made up of fragments’>.

Simplicity, to me, is about using the complex parts to box in the whole.

You either:

Bracket what you want to offer <simplicity resides within two opposing thoughts>.

Triangulate what you want to offer <simplicity resides in the middle>.

Box in what you want to offer <simplicity gets squeezed into middle>.

Now.

Some people may use what I just shared and say “simplicity is the distillation” and I would push back by suggesting “simplicity is reflective of all the parts as it shows the whole.”

Am I parsing words?

Maybe.

But when someone says ‘show a picture’ or ‘say it in 5 seconds or you lose them’ and be done with it … I just don’t think it is that simple. Simple stimuli are just as likely to confuse. Provide ambiguity. Generate a feeling of ‘lesser than’ <”I am missing something of value or I missed the opportunity to showcase some value”>.

— note: there is a lot of research supporting this thought —

Look.

Our minds are like real estate.

Space is limited and we can’t let every thought, idea, product, person or whatever have a place to stay.

That means where the rubber hits the road with regard to being simple and simplicity is that it must create some connection with whomever is touching that simplicity

I will end with Chopin. Chopin is one of my favorite classical composers. I seriously doubt anyone who has ever looked at any of his sheet music would suggest his music was not complex. And, yet, close your eyes and listen … it contains a simplicity that connects.

==================

“Simplicity is the final achievement.

After one has played a vast quantity of notes and more notes, it is simplicity that emerges as the crowning reward of art.”

—

Frédéric Chopin

====================

All I know is that we have totally fucked up the idea of simplicity to a point where simple, or simplicity, is more a myth than reality. This myth has hollowed us out – hollowed our thinking, our communication and our culture.

Most of the worthwhile things in Life are not hollow … they have depth & breadth … they are … well … complex.

Reality is complex.

Life is complex.

Most ideas and thoughts are complex.

And there is no simple solution to complexity but I would suggest that the beauty can be found in the breakdown of the complex to its simplest form.

Freedom, in and of itself, is quite possibly the most valuable privilege one can have in the world.

Freedom, in and of itself, may be one of the most misunderstood and least understood ideas in the world.

Freedom, in and of itself, may be one of the most appealing concepts in the world.

Freedom, in and of itself, once attained may be one of the most difficult concepts, as an individual, to manage in the world.

Freedom is one of those things that should make you think long and hard about what, exactly, do you want?

But, yet, many of us do not.

And we should.

We should because, at its core, freedom is about liberty of self and what you want. I believe it was John Stuart Mill who stated that the individual “is the person most interested in his own well-being,” and that the “ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else.”

What this suggests is that, while freedom may have some societal demands and constraints, the real ‘rule of freedom’ comes from within each individual.

Uh oh.

Within?

No fences. No boundaries. Not even a public compass … just one that resides in yourself.

This would suggest it could become easy to get lost.

Look.

I am not suggesting society would ever permit all of us to actually decide how we wanted to define freedom for our own lives and live our Life in that self-defined way without any repercussions <and there would have to be as each of us pursued ‘our own wellbeing’>.

However.

Because you can view from such a personal standpoint and a self interest standpoint it can become incredibly easy to start seeing your own path as <a> the path everyone else should be walking on and <b> the path which reflects the best definition of how freedom should be viewed.

And in that … well … it can become incredibly easy to get lost within your own views of what is freedom and how you may choose to use your freedom.

I tend to believe freedom is freeing … and constricting at exactly the same time.

And the only way to enjoy freedom is to actually do something with it and not just talk about it or enjoy it.

Yeah.

The secret to not being suffocated by freedom is the ability to use that freedom to create something <not simply being free>. I imagine another way of saying that is you can suffocate by not doing anything <or not choosing to choose to use your freedom>.

============

“The ability to convert ideas to things is the secret of outward success.”

–

Henry Ward Beecher

================

Ah.

Therein lies the rub.

Create from freedom.

Sometimes that can seem like creating something from nothing. Freedom encourages ideas and thinking but then … uh oh … Life kind of demands you convert your access to freedom into ‘something.’

It within that ‘demand from Life’ where most people abuse freedom … people choose not to choose.

Now.

We do this all the time … choose not to choose. Oddly enough a shitload of people think this is actually exercising your freedom. Go figure.

Not doing something is an expression of freedom.

<scratching my head here>

Some people argue this is an excellent way that we exercise our freedom and flex our choice-making muscles. Either we actually do not make a choice at all or we delegate the choice-making to someone else <sometimes an expert – doctor, banker, service provider> or we just delegate the choice making into the “to be done later” file.

In general we have good intentions … we do this because we do not want to invest the energy and time to make a ‘right decision’ <this actually becomes ‘not choosing’, or using your freedom, because of fear of not making the right choice … or using your freedom properly>. And, yes, it is ‘good intentions’ to intentionally avoid making a bad decision.

Sure. Using the overall excuse of “I am too busy” choosing not to choose can often seem to be the best choice because it can sometimes appear to then free us up to do something else.

Personally I call bullshit on this type of thinking.

Freedom kind of has two levers or maybe an “on/off” switch … opt in or opt out.

Either use your freedom or don’t use it.

You either value your choice or you don’t. There really isn’t a lot of room in-between.

And, yeah, people will argue with me on this but I am stating it this way because while freedom can far too often look abstract … in reality, in practice, it is anything but abstract.

Doing, action, is at the core of freedom itself.

I have traveled the world and seen freedom and no freedom.

I have traveled the world and seen the arguments and debates and fights over freedom itself <my freedom versus your freedom>.

But here is the deal.

The opportunity to choose is not all that matters. I say that because far too many people who actually have the opportunity <a> do not exercise their freedoms or <b> get bogged down on the debate & conflict of my freedom versus your freedom. Choosing is what matters where freedom is concerned.

And it is even tougher because you may never really know if you have used your freedom well or wisely.

But here is what I do know.

It will be how you use your freedom which will be immortalized. And, yes, everyone is immortalized. Either through your forgetfulness or lack of memorability or lack of choice or doing something … or how you cannot be forgotten or memorability through how you used your freedom and the choices you made. I say that because immortality will be the stories that are told about what you did with your freedom. That will be the final judge.

And maybe that is why we get both lost and free within freedom.

Given freedom we tend to hug tightly to any boundaries we find for fear of getting lost. But, assuming we actually ‘do shit’ and make choices using our freedom … more and more we start to get a feel for those boundaries and begin pushing them out.

Simplistically we push them further and further away from ourselves. At some point if we push them far enough it will feel like there are no boundaries and yet we do not feel lost.

I imagine that is what some people would call “freedom.”

I also imagine that it feels good.

=============

“When you do something noble and beautiful and nobody notices, do not be sad.

For the sun every morning is a beautiful spectacle and yet most of the audience still sleeps.”

Most industries once they have a fair number of competitors is more like a 7 lane superhighway where everyone is driving in the same direction within the same guard rails.

Not everyone will like thinking that but the truth is that most businesses have smart people who see the same information and do all the necessary research with people who are likely, and not likely, to buy whatever it is they are selling and therefore strategies are in the same realm and everyone is pretty much competing in the same arena.

This means a couple of things.

Everyone is speeding toward the same destination.

If something is obvious to you, it is most likely obvious to them.

What all of this means is you have to move but most moves have to be done artfully.

So maybe despite the fact I balk at the whole ‘zig when they zig’ and ‘unexpected’ anything in business gives me heartburn it is possible I could discuss the art of the unexpected move.

I call it “art” because unpredictability as normal behavior is bad. No one likes someone who is unpredictable 100% of the time and organizations <alignment, operations and ‘day to day doing’> tend to respond poorly to unpredictability.

In my highway metaphor unpredictability most likely means either <a> a crash or <b> slowing down and you get passed or <c> you are now on a completely different road than all the other competitors speeding toward sales, & customers.

As for predictable?

Yikes. Boring. Lack of creativity. Bad <in a different way> … let’s just call predictable “lack of any art.”

In my highway metaphor this most likely means you are cruising in one of the right lanes, the slower lanes, and people are passing you all the frickin’ time.

This suggests making a move in your industry take more art and artfulness to navigate the path you desire or take advantage of the opportunity that may open.

This also suggests, in the business world, you sit up and pay attention just with a little more focus when someone pulls out the “maybe we should zig when they zag” tritism. You do so mostly because anyone who says that who is not on a football field most likely has their head up their ass <but want to say something catchy in a meeting to be noticed>.

I say that, again, because most time in a business industry companies are going in a direction for a reason … that is where the sales are. So ‘zigging’ when everyone else ‘zags’ more than likely means they are heading toward sales and you are not <but you can always say you zigged when they zagged>.

Ok.

Now.

If you want to tie ‘unexpected move’ to survival … well … that is a different story.

Survival does have a nasty habit of forcing some unexpected maneuvering. Ok. Maybe out of desperation the predictable in us decides that maybe being ‘unexpected’ may actually be called for.

I would suggest that if you find yourself in desperate times rarely is anything artful in that moment.

But I would suggest that in a desperate survival mode I can offer tow lists you should write up on some big board in some big conference room and make sure you discuss.

There are basically 4 basic responses to a threat <or opportunity I imagine>:

Fight

Flee

Deceive

Submit

Any move you choose to make will be derived from one of these four spaces.

Choose wisely.

Once you have chosen <wisely> effectiveness in a survival fight basically comes down to 4 things <in the order of importance>:

aggression and willingness to hurt your competition

willingness to get hurt yourself

skill and knowledge

strength and power

Some may haggle with my order but the top two will dictate your success regardless of how you stack the last two.

And of the last two is would suggest most of the time knowing what to do is more important than brute strength.

Choose wisely <but always choose the first two or you will get crushed>.

I offer these two lists because when anyone suggests zigging when someone zags I bring these out.

Shit.

I bring these two lists out almost any time a business wants to talk about effectively competing in an industry.

Why?

Because nothing really matters if you do not figure out these two lists.

Why?

Going back to what I said earlier … advantages are temporary and the other guys/gals you are competing against are as smart as you are.

You don’t zig just for the sake of zigging <that is wasted organizational energy> and if you do have to take an unexpected move it is most typically a response to something in the situation.

While we like to talk about zigging and zagging the reality comes back to the highway. You have to move forward and keep moving forward <or get run over>.

The only zigging anyone should ever talk about is either moving into another lane to pass someone or another lane to let someone pass you or change lanes to avoid a crash.

================

“Desperation is the raw material of drastic change.

Only those who can leave behind everything they have ever believed in can hope to escape.

—-

William S. Burroughs

==============

Unexpected moves just to do something unexpected is … well … stupid.

It is in the same category as change for change sake.

It is in the same category as zigging when they zag.

Now.

Unexpected moves made in the search for something incredible waiting to be known <some desired destination>? Well … yeah … that isn’t stupid.

===========

“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.”

—-

Carl Sagan

===========

……………. zig zag mistake …………….

Unexpected moves made to survive on the competition highway? That isn’t stupid.

Unexpected moves made to veer through a window of opportunity that arises? That isn’t stupid.

But zig when they zag? C’mon. That’s just stupid.

It is stupid because more likely than not it just means you will have not left the comeptition behind but rather just left the competition.

“I had,” he said, “come to an entirely erroneous conclusion, my dear Watson, how dangerous it always is to reason from insufficient data.”

–

Sherlock Holmes

<The Adventure of the Speckled Band>

================

“When we get better understanding or the facts or evidence don’t agree with the theory we must change the theory and change course.””

–

Sherlock Holmes

============

“… when you hear hoof beats behind you don’t expect a zebra.”

–

proverb

===================

So.

“I believe”may be two of the most dreaded word you can hear in today’s world.

Those two words may be this century’s version of throwing down a gauntlet or challenging someone to a duel.

“I believe” has been bastardized in today’s world to actually mean “I know” <but people have convinced themselves if they soften it with ‘I believe’ people will think they are more open to listening and true discussion>.

Facts matter. And they matter a shitload not only with truth but in the battle between I know and I believe.

The problem is that while facts are facts … two facts can coexist in the pursuit of “I know.”

Shit.

The truth is that … well … truth , the unequivocal kind, is most likely borne of let’s say 8 facts <I made that number up> coexisting … which when arranged into a pattern make up an unequivocal truth.

This means unequivocal truth … or let’s call it good solid “I know” is made up of a puzzle of facts … not just one fact or even two.

The practice of Truth is actually a profession of facts.

Using legalese for binding of contracts … by means of facts, truths are created and beliefs come into existence. Yet, in spite of all good intentions, the meanings of individual facts are not always clear and unequivocal. They may be capable of being understood in more ways than one, they may be doubtful or uncertain, and they may lend themselves to various interpretations by different individuals.

Following that thought … this means, when differences in understanding are not resolvable, divides in “beliefs” occur and dysfunction, in terms of lack of progress, occurs.

Once again, in legal terms, this is called “ambiguity.”

Paradoxically enough, the word ambiguity itself has more than one interpretation.

The general meaning has to do with how things are said, the words that are used, by someone and how those words are understood.

Ambiguity occurs where the two are not in alignment. The lack of alignment actually springs back upon the facts themselves in a vicious way — the fact itself comes into doubt.

Sigh.

But facts are facts. The problem isn’t about the fact but rather most truths are more complex than one fact. Unequivocal truth is grounded in … well … 8 facts <once again, I picked 8 out of the air but you get the point>.

This problem gets compounded by how people elect to actually use facts.

Using my 8 let me tell you what I mean. The expert, the most knowledgeable, will stack up the 8 facts from top to bottom in order of priority … but all relevant to making and truth unequivocal.

Then we, the non-experts, get in the game.

Some of us use the highest priority fact … and that is all.

Some grab the facts we want in the order we want and create the truth we want.

Some may actually use the 8 but decided to prioritize them in a different order.

All are using facts. Most are using them improperly or in an incomplete way. And, inevitably, 90%+ end up with an “I believe” and not an “I know” stand.

I know. I know. We all wish truth could be easier and, in fact, many people flippantly suggest truth is simple <or simpler than we make it out to be>.

Here is what I know about that. Using the thought I used upfront in this piece “… when you hear hoof beats behind you don’t expect a zebra.”

Well.

An expert, maybe a horse trainer, could hear the hoof beats and tell you with 95% confidence the breed, the weight and the type of horse coming up behind you. The dreamer will suggest it could be a unicorn. The pragmatic will narrow it down to a horse, zebra, antelope or some 4 hoofed animal.

Truth is less than simple and more in need of facts than we like to admit.

Yes.

The trouble with unequivocal truth is that it usually takes ‘one more step than you think’ to get there. Unfortunately, the truth about this is most of us don’t make it there.

We stop short.

And I tend to believe most of us know we are stopping short. We like the facts that we have but we, at the same time, know there are most likely some more out there that could be useful. We have 3 or 4 and decide the remaining 4 or 5 are just not that necessary. I guess we bank on the fact if we stop short we have at least grabbed the top 3 or 4 most important facts in an unequivocal truth.

Yikes.

Dangerous thought.

It’s dangerous in believing we have the most important ones of the ones we decided is enough but possibly even more dangerous is that we confuse an unequivocal truth for a simple “I believe” thought.

It is dangerous because “I believes” tend to reside in the negative space. Huh? If you only snag 4 of the 8 necessary facts the debate can never be resolved as the back & forth ends up in the blank spaces around the discussion. Truth is constructed more often by what was not found than what was found <look at what I didn’t point out versus what I did point out> – that is negative space truth.

Uhm.

That is not unequivocal truth.

In fact … it poisons the unequivocal truths in a misdirection of specious comparisons.

I would suggest that more of us should pay attention to negative space.

Why?

Negative space is usually indicative that a fact is missing. 99% of negative space can be filled with a fact <if only we looked hard enough for it>.

All that said.

Truth is the axis munid … the dead center of the earth.

=============

“the person who pretends to not see the truth is committing something much worse than a mortal sin, which can only ruin one’s soul – but instead committing us all to lifetimes of pain. The truth is not just something we bring to light to amuse ourselves; the truth is the axis munid, the dead center of the earth.

When it’s out of place nothing is right; everyone is in the wrong place; no light can penetrate.

Happiness evades us and we spread pain and misery wherever we go.

Each person, above all others, has an obligation to recognize the truth and stand by it.”

—–

Jacque Silette

================

I believe, no, I know the world would be a better place if more of us took that thought seriously. Because if we did than maybe we wouldn’t stop short of the unequivocal truth destination. Maybe we wouldn’t settle for an “I believe” thought and confuse it with a real “I know” thought. And maybe if we did there would be less discussion of alternative facts and more discussion about unequivocal truths on which we could center ourselves on.

“I had,” he said, “come to an entirely erroneous conclusion, my dear Watson, how dangerous it always is to reason from insufficient data.”

Geez.

If Sherlock Holmes says that sure as shit more of us should be saying it <and I don’t think we are>.

We just have to want to get there and not be satisfied by stopping short and feeling good about the facts we gathered … short of the ones we need to reach unequivocal. I don’t know that 8 facts create an unequivocal truth is the right formula but I sure as shit believe it is on the right path to getting there.

“You are a worm who thought himself a serpent just because you slither.

But your power was not real, Pliny.

It was all a dream. Time now to wake.”

—–

Pierce Brown

=============

So.

I would guess that most of us have run across a slitherer in business <let alone Life>.

A business slitherer?

Yeah.

One of those people who seem to slither in and around and as close to the edge of what is legal, ethical or right but never seems to cross any particular line far enough that someone can say unequivocally they have done something criminally wrong.

A slitherer slithers through all the same things most of us in business and in life do but does it in a way that seems corrupt <although it may not be>, seems illegal <although it may not be>, seems unethical <although it may not be> and seems inappropriate <although it may not be too everyone>.

That is the characteristic of one who slithers through Life.

—–

“seems.”

——-

“Seems” taints everything they do and, well, everything we do. A slitherer figures out a way to be held to a slightly different standard which ‘seems’ wrong but no one can point to any real specific criminally wrong behavior.

And it always helps to have someone defend you and somehow the one who slithers almost always has supporters. Those supporters mostly rally around the quasi-indefensible behavior because a slitherer is a proven survivor. And, yes, in a world in which surviving attrition may actually be a key to success … a persistent survivor can be viewed as an attractive ship to tie your line to <even if it is a ship of dubious lineage>.

But maybe the worst thing about someone who slithers their way to whatever success they gain is the team that ends up surrounding them.

Although I am no real prize for any boss … I would never work for a slitherer – my ethical and moral compass steers me too far away from any “seems wrong” behavior to make a position like that viable for me — or, I imagine, for a slitherer boss.

=============

“Round and round they went with their snakes, snakily…”

―

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

============================

My point on that is slitherers seek slitherers. It is a weird type of loyalty. It isn’t really loyalty to the person it is more loyalty to the fact you can behave in a way that ‘seems’ inappropriate on occasion but ‘seems’ okay to your boss <if not even applauded>.

Sigh.

That said.

We do not fire people for being seemingly unethical behavior or seemingly clueless behavior or seemingly inappropriate behavior. Appearance of behavior just makes people feel uncomfortable but it is typically not a fireable offense … it is just offensive.

And, yet, a slitherer thrives in the seemingly offensive behavior. They thrive because as their seeming behavior shrinks them in some ways it also grows their ability to slither around the edges of true illegal, true criminal, true unethical to do what they want to do the way they want to do it.

To be clear.

A good day for a slitherer is different than a good day for most of the rest of us.

Good to them is a “win”, or some version of successful outcome> done ‘their way’ of which no one can point to any specific wrong doing or completely unethical behavior <which, to them, is a type of success in and of itself>. Their ‘good win’ doesn’t have to actually contain any of what most of us would consider ‘good’ to be considered success.

To be clear.

Most good organizations foster a culture which tends to expel slitherers. Good cultures which foster moral & ethical behavior tend to avoid slithering close to any lines and therefore tend to treat slitherers as a virus to the organization itself.

I do worry, on occasion, that the good slitherers <which is actually an oxymoron> survive in any organization and are constantly trying to infect the organization itself <and, given the right circumstances, actually can take over an organization>.

I wrote this today because it has been sitting in my draft folder for a long time as an organizational behavior business piece … and now I can point out that our president is a slitherer.

He slithers through all the same things most of us in business and in life do but he does it in a way that seems corrupt <although it may not be>, seems illegal <although it may not be>, seems unethical <although it may not be> and seems inappropriate <although it may not be too everyone>.

Just watch. Trump will slither his way in and out of any seemingly illegal, corrupt, unethical event he places himself in. That is what a good slitherer does. And, yes, good slitherer is an oxymoron … but in a way President trump is also.

“And the nights, bigger than imagining: black and gusty and enormous, disordered and wild with stars.”

—–

Donna Tartt

===============

“This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.”

―

T.S. Eliot

==========

Well.

Despite the fact most nights remain the same amount of hours, minutes and seconds day to day a sleepless night can often look bigger than imagined. I have found that sleepless nights are less about restless minds and more about capacity in a squeezed space.

Huh?

Let me tackle squeezed first.

In general the world is a pretty vast place and our lives can seem fairly inconsequential. The good news about this is that within all that vastness there is a lot of room to let some of the more horrible or horribly mundane crap just slip by.

The bad news occurs when all of a sudden Life, and the world, shrinks and you feel squeezed. And this can happen a lot easier than one may think.

Ponder what I am going to say as “the big squeeze.”

Everyday everyone faces some naturally occurring ‘shrinking’ aspects which in and of themselves can’t shrink your Life enough to matter. Let’s just say this is the daily grind of work, chores and family & Life commitments. Some things go well and some things don’t.

And then, of course, there will be a day or two where the things that “don’t” significantly outnumber the things that “do.” because this is day to day shit I view this as getting squeezed from the sides. They kind of suffocate you a little.

But set that aside for a moment.

And then there will be some days where you have that ad hoc shit you have to plan to get done … the faucet is dripping, the car engine light is on, someone hit the mailbox, crap like that. 95% of the time this kind of shit never goes as planned. It takes too long or it doesn’t get done right the first time or … well … suffice it to say … the easy stuff never gets done as easily as you would want.

And then, of course, there will be a day or two where the things that never get done as easily as you want actually end up just not going right. This is stupid little shit … but maybe think about it as maybe getting squeezed from underneath – an unexpected aggravating shift on the ground below you.

But set that aside for a moment.

And then there will be some days where you turn on the TV or maybe scan the internet news breaks and … well … some shit has hit the fan. Your country has made some monumental decision that seems to shift its place in the world.

Some nutjob terrorist has committed some heinous act to innocent people.

Some “thing” happens that feel like a shift in the bedrock of ‘what is.’ It may not directly affect you but you sense that it is a monumental thing which will most likely affect you <even though you aren’t sure how yet>. This is big shit … this just makes you feel a little like the weight of the world has gotten a little heavier and the world as you have known it has become a little murkier. You are getting squeezed from above.

But set that aside for a moment.

Now.

I will now get to capacity.

Let’s assume on one day all there of things happen … you get squeezed all on one day. Oddly, this becomes a test of your capacity <which implies largeness>. And, yes, maybe it is about largeness. As in how large you can remain as you get squeezed.

Some nights it isn’t easy to not get suffocated.

Other nights you find your capacity and push back a little.

Most nights you find just enough largeness to not get … well … too little.

But the nights in which all three aspects I outlined squeezed you I would suggest … well … the word ‘forlorn’ comes to mind.

====================

“Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.”

―

J.R.R. Tolkien

=============

I use forlorn because I associate it with capacity as I am discussing it today.

Forlorn has a sense of shrinking to it in that the good in Life seems to shrink and that which is bad seems to grow and you are left with that wretched forlorn feeling which dogs you throughout a sleepless night. Forlorn seems like it is more appropriate than lonely or lonesome in that it specifically embraces a senses of wretchedness and desertion or abandonment … in my mind … ‘despairing of the arrival of a friend … in this case … a friend called Hope.”

To me … all of what I just shared with regard to squeezing and capacity captures the essence of the worst of the worst sleepless nights.

And, if I were a betting man, I would bet we have all had a few of these.

Ok.

Here is what I know.

Most of us get through these nights. Despite the vast emptiness of a night, more vast than we imagined it should be, we cast about among the chaos of the stars and find some light.

I like to think of it as we clamber through the clouds and exist.

===============

“I will clamber through the clouds and exist.”

—-

John Keats

==============

And the outcome of most of these nights, in addition to being tired, is out of the gauntlet of forlornness we seem to come out with a degree of hope.

Hope for a better day <at minimum> and maybe Hope for something better <at maximum>.

In other words, out of the bigness which seems to squeeze us if but for a moment we rummage through a sleepless night … one black and gusty and enormous, disordered and wild with stars … and come out a little less black, a little more calm, a little more ordered and a little more focused on some star.

A boss is interested in himself or herself, a leader is interested in the group.”

—–

Russell H. Ewing

===============

Well.

This is not about threatening employees about making mistakes <i.e., ”you are gonna get fired if you fuck this up”> but rather threatening employees who are exhibiting behavior that isn’t what you want from them.

This is also less a thought about managing individuals but more about managing a culture and groups of individuals – exploring systemic behavior issues.

Now.

I have to tell you.

Having managed a shitload of people there has certainly been some point where I wanted to threaten my employees if not just strangle them <and I am sure the feeling was mutual on occasion>.

Most of us just take a deep breath. Maybe close the door of their office and throw something. And then calm down enough to realize that most employees’ actions & behaviors are derivative of our own leadership.

As a corollary to that thought … if the actions & behaviors reflect a more systemic issue and not just some random individuals, well, you knowit is reflective of your own leadership <or lack of leadership>.

Ah … “most of us.” Well. Not “all of us.”

Management by fear is the go-to tactic of the old generation of business leaders.

They were also the ‘benevolent dictators’ <sort of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Men of Hitlers> as well as the dickheads who treated everyone like shit except the ones who did exactly what they were told to do.

Once again, about the only business people who believe in this type of management are <1> those who have never run a larger organization which demands cultural alignment for effectiveness, <2> managers over the age of 65 — mostly white ones, <3> weak leaders, or <4> narcissistic arrogant dickheads.

===========

“I suppose that leadership at one time meant muscle; but today it means getting along with people.

–

Indira Gandhi

============

Threatening employees with forced confidentiality agreements, law suits, sweeping statements of firing a shitload of people, and even “you are either with me or against me” type threats is not only stupid but it is less than effective.

That doesn’t encourage the best behavior, which is self-motivated, but rather all this does is create ‘forced behavior.’ Now. I am now behavior expert but even I know if I am forcing a certain type of behavior and , ultimately, that behavior is never absorbed as ‘self-affirmation of what I believe an like” … well … the first chance an employee gets to ‘unforce themselves’ they are gonna do it.

Here is what most of the good leaders know.

You can never, and I mean never, absolve yourself of the behaviors of your employees. You are either complicit or encouraged or simply an enabler.

You are, whether you like it or not, responsible for your employee’s actions.

What does that mean?

If they do things that piss you off you, most likely, have pissed them off.

If they show you little respect, you, most likely, have shown them little respect.

If they show you lack of loyalty, you, most likely, have not earned their loyalty or shown behavior that deserves loyalty.

If you do not recognize anything I just wrote as truth, you, most likely, just threaten your employees every time they do something you don’t like.

Look.

I have absolutely talked to an individual employee about their expense reports.

I have absolutely spoken to an individual employee about their behavior in the office.

I have absolutely sat down with an individual employee about what they should, or should not, be saying to people outside the office.

But, more importantly, I talk with the accounting department, the HR department and department heads to find out about what the organization is systemically doing with their expense reports, behavior in the office and talking outside the office.

I don’t think I was a particularly great leader but even I knew that systemic behavioral issues were my issues — not their issues.

I also understand that threatening employees, or even the trite ‘carrot & stick’ thinking, was ineffective if you wanted to build a culture where individual employees didn’t cheat on their expense reports, didn’t do stupid shit in the office and didn’t say the wrong things about the company outside the office.

A leader knows threats are stupid if you have any desire to build a long term culture. You set expectations, provide a vision that people can be proud of and the reward is not anything individual monetarily or even ‘keeping your job’ but rather the employee looks around and sees solidarity – the prize is being part of a team aligned on an objective.

Some leaders don’t see that. All they see is bad behavior and offer threats to seal the cracks in the system. All that does is mask the problem not solve the problem. All that solves systemic organizational bad behavior is good leadership — not threats.

Fear, despite what some may suggest, is not a particularly great motivator in business.